FA 1081/15 & Ors. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2015 GODHAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVP. CORP. VERSUS NAIMOEDDIN HAMID MIYA AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.D. Biradar AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2538 OF 2011 NAIMOEDDIN HAMID MIYA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS … Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. R.D. Biradar … 58 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2015 GODHAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVP. CORP. VERSUS NASIROEDDIN HAMID MIYA AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.D. Biradar AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2537 OF 2011 NASIRODDIN HAMID MIYA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS … Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. R.D. Biradar … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 17, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:37337 FA 1081/15 & Ors. 2 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2000, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By these appeals, the original claimants as well as the acquiring body assail the judgments and awards dated 7.6.2010 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in LAR Nos. 36 and 40 of 2003. 3. As far as the appeals filed by the the acquiring body are concerned, the learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that the compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court does not exceed four times the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the policy decision of the State Government contained in Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference, if compensation is enhanced only upto four times. Hence, the appeals filed by the acquiring body i.e. FA Nos. 1081 and 1271 of 2015 needs to be dismissed. 4. In the appeals filed by the original claimant, it is submitted that the lands of the claimants admeasuring 1 H. 77 R. and 95 R. from Gat No. 141 were acquired for Renapur-Sudha Project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Government Gazette on 17.2.2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has published the award on 30.5.2001 and has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.71,500/- per H. for the acquired lands and Rs. 29,335/- for teakwood trees. The claimants received the amount under protest. Being dissatisfied with the award of SLAO, the claimants have filed reference under section 18 of the Act. After FA 1081/15 & Ors. 3 considering the evidence led by the respective parties, the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1,36,500/- per H. Being aggrieved by the judgments and awards of the learned reference court, the original claimants filed the present appeals. 5. The learned counsel for original claimants has tendered a copy of order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in LAR No. 24/2003 (Pundlik s/o. Ganpati Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and submits that though the above reference arises from the land acquired from different village, however, from the same notification and for the same project i.e. Renapur- Sudha Project, the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per H. He therefore submits that the claimants in the present case are also entitled to receive the same rate. 6. Per contra, Mr. R.D. Biradar, learned counsel for acquiring body vehemently opposed for granting the relief as was granted in LAR No. 24/2003 (supra) on the ground that the said reference was filed in respect of the land from other village, though arises from the same notification and for the same project. He submits that the said decision cannot be considered as binding precedent and it is incumbent upon the claimants to establish their claim by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. He submits that after considering the evidence on record in the present case, the learned reference court has rightly determined the compensation. In addition, he submits that in respect of teakwood trees separate amount has been granted by the reference court and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to receive the compensation as was granted in LAR No. 24/2003. FA 1081/15 & Ors. 4 He therefore prays to dismiss the appeals filed by the claimants. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their assistance I have gone through the record and proceeding and impugned judgments and awards of the reference court. There is no dispute about the fact that by issuing section 4 notification though the lands were acquired from the different villages for the same project i.e. Renapur- Sudha Project. Though the order passed in LAR No. 24/2003 (supra) cannot be considered as binding principal, but the same can be considered as guiding principle to determine the market value of the acquired lands in the present appeals. For the same project, the reference court has determined the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per H. in LAR No. 24/2003 though the land was acquired from different village. This Court considering decision in LAR No. 24/2003, hold that though the lands were acquired from the different villages for the same project under the same notification, in the appeals filed by the claimants rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per H. needs to be granted as was granted in LAR No. 24/2003. Hence, I pass the following order. O R D E R (1) The appeals filed by the acquiring body are dismissed. (2) The appeals filed by the original claimants are partly allowed. (3) The original claimants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per H. for their acquired lands. (4) The claimants are entitled to receive interest and other statutory benefits in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. (5) The judgment and award passed by the reference court is modified accordingly. FA 1081/15 & Ors. 5 (6) Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by the acquiring body in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). (7) Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/